NITI Aayog vice-chairman Arvind Panagariya.In the backdrop of the lapse of the ordinance amending the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, NITI Aayog, government’s premiere think tank, has said that there is no need for a land acquisition law in the country and that states should look for other alternatives to acquire land.

In a blog posted on the NITI Aayog website, Aayog’s vice chairman and renowned economist Arvind Panagariya has said land pooling, acquiring land on lease and lastly allowing states to amend their own land laws, something which BJP-led NDA government had hinted after PM Narendra Modi’s meeting with chief ministers of all states under the governing council of the Aayog, could be other ways of acquiring land for growth and development.

“When both buyer and seller agree, the transaction can be completed as a purchase instead of acquisition. The view that consent is always necessary amounts to arguing that all ownership transfers must be through purchase transactions, eliminating the need for a land acquisition law,” Panagariya has said in his blog.

According to Panagariya, since land acquisition belongs to the Concurrent List, the Constitution allows a state to amend a central act on this provided the central government approves of the amendment. “Under the present government, states of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh have amended several labour laws that fall under the Concurrent List.

The same instrumentality can be applied to land acquisition subject to the central government giving its approval,” he said, citing the recent amendments by the government of Tamil Nadu.

The view that consent is always necessary amounts to arguing that all ownership transfers must be through purchase transactions, eliminating the need for a land acquisition law

An additional instrument that governments may use to make acquisition more acceptable to landowners is land pooling, Panagariya feels. “The idea here is to purchase or acquire more land than is required for the project and eventually transfer each landowner a fraction of her land back from the excess land after the project is complete,” he said.

Explaining the rationale behind such a proposal, he said because major public purpose projects such as highways raise the value of the surrounding land, the value of the fraction of the original piece of land returned could be higher than the value of the full piece prior to the completion of the project, and hence the landowners may find such a deal attractive.

“Alternatively, government may take land on long-term lease rather than purchase or acquire it. Again, landowners may find this option attractive because it allows them to keep ownership of land, earn an assured return and retain the option to renegotiate the terms once the initial terms of the lease expires,” he added.